A daily informal examination of the impact of government processes on a free and democratic society

Monday, March 26, 2012

Evidence of Wildrose Being Canceled Out by the PC Party

In this Edmonton Journal article by Trish Audette and Lucas Timmons, there is evidence that the Wildrose Party is being canceled out by the PC Party in terms of large contributions. Yet ironically, the Wildrose Party has the single largest donors from 2004 to 2010 from the Thorsteinson family. The Wildrose claims that it has the highest contributions in terms of small contributions, but the FDA has no evidence to prove that. Interestingly, the large corporate contributors play a hedging game, which may be an indication of political corruption in terms of buying influence over Alberta provincial legislation. (The same hedging occurs at the Alberta municipal level of government.) The FDA believes that corporations and trade unions should be disallowed from making electoral contributions as is the case in Manitoba and Nova Scotia for examples. Democracy should only be about the people.

Shortly, the FDA will be releasing an electoral fairness audit report on Canada's 10 provinces.

Just 31 donors switch to Wildrose from Tories; New party gained $75,000

While recent polls suggest the Wildrose is closely tailing the Progressive Conservatives going into a spring election, an Edmonton Journal analysis of political donations shows that by 2010 the fledgling right-wing party hadn't managed to over a majority of big-spending Tory donors.

Between 2004 and 2010, only 31 donors switched allegiance from the Progressive Conservatives to the Wildrose, taking nearly $75,000 with them between 2008 and 2010. Up to 2009, those donors had contributed nearly $112,000 to the Progressive Conservatives.

But Wildrose senate candidate and former executive director Vitor Marciano said the analysis, based on financial records filed with Elections Alberta, only takes into consideration donors who contributed at least $375 to political parties. The province's disclosure laws don't require names of donors who contribute less than that to be made public.

We massively outraised (the Tories) in the small donation category. And that's where overwhelming numbers of people who used to be (Progressive Conservative) supporters are now in Wildrose," Marciano said. The large donors, they tend to make their donations sometimes a little strategically, so I'm not surprised they haven't completely switched over."

Donors who hedged their bets by donating to both conservative parties in 2010 contributed a total $84,000, 52 per cent of which went to the governing party and 48 per cent to the Wildrose.

For a number of years, Wildrose funding - or Alberta Alliance donations - came from a smaller cross-section of individuals, reflecting the party's roots as what Marciano called a "small protest party." Marciano said that changed when Danielle Smith took over as leader in 2009.

Political scientist Chaldeans Mensah said after then-premier Ed Stelmach's review and realignment of oil royalties in 2008, some observers expected financial support for the governing party to drop.

There was concern that funding for the (Progressive Conservatives) was going to dry up because of unhappiness by some of the oil and gas entities with the royalty review," the MacEwan University professor said.

"The government went out of its way to make some changes in that regime and I don't think that they suffered too much in terms of political contributions."

The largest loss for the Progressive Conservatives was Nexen Inc., a Calgary-based oil and gas company. Nexen donated $59,850 to the Tories between 2004 and 2009, and $41,850 to the Alberta Liberals during the same period. In 2010, the company gave $2,200 to the Wildrose and nothing to the PCs or Liberals.

FDA Grade Scale

A+ Exceptional candidate and/or party (overall flawless and original policies and vision, impeccable incumbency record if applicable, exceptional competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 84.99% and less than 100.1%)

A Outstanding candidate and/or party (overall very high standard for policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 79.99% and less than 85%)

B+ Very good candidate and/or party (overall high standard for policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 74.99% and less than 80%)

C+ Unacceptable candidate and/or party (few deficiencies and/or major deficiencies in some of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 64.99% and less than 70%)

C Unacceptable candidate and/or party (several deficiencies and/or major deficiencies in some of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 59.99% and less than 65%)

D+ Unacceptable candidate and/or party (a lot of deficiencies and/or major deficiencies in some of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 54.99% and less than 60%)

D Unacceptable candidate and/or party (many deficiencies and/or major deficiencies in some of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 49.99% and less than 55%)

F Unacceptable candidate and/or party (numerous major deficiencies in most if not all of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade less than 50%)

FDA Links

Facebook Like Button

Foundation for Democratic Advancement

The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) is an international independent, non-partisan democracy organization. The FDA’s mission is
to measure, study, and communicate the impact of government processes on a free and democratic society.
Overall, the FDA works
1. to ensure that people become more knowledgeable about the outcomes of government processes and can then make decisions that are more informed;
2. to get people involved in monitoring government processes at all levels of government and in providing sound, practical, and effective suggestions. (For more information on the FDA visit: www.democracychange.org)